Origin & Age of The Universe
S D Rodrian
a...@silmarill.org wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 11:48:53 GMT, S D Rodrian
<Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> >In article <sj9q4to82rfiamtf1...@4ax.com>,
> >akl...@villagenet.com wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:46:58 GMT, S D Rodrian
> >> <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> posted in alt.atheism:
> >>
> >> >Sorry, no: It is any "speed" as long as it is
> >> >constant in identical mediums. The speed of light
> >> >in vacuum is simply "faster" than it is in "air."
> >> >This is the conventional explanation, of course.
> >> >The truth is that the photon doesn't (much) "move."
> >> >In our imploding universe it is everything except
> >> >the photon that is moving (past the photon, of course).
> >> >And this is why there is such mind-boggling constancy
> >> >to its "speed" ... why in identical mediums? Think
> >> >about it for a second: In a "thicker" medium there is
> >> >a stronger gravitational field than in a "thinner"
> >> >medium: Therefore the photon which is IN a thicker
> >> >medium is "pulled along" (dragged) more than the photon
> >> >IN a thinner gravitational field (medium). We mortal
> >> >observers are, of course, ON the moving ("passing
> >> >the photon") universe looking upon it, so from our
> >> >perspective it looks as if it's the photon that's really
> >> >"moving." [e.g. The photon which is being pulled along
> >> >(dragged with us) will seem to be moving more slowly
> >> >than the photon which is being dragged along (with us)
> >> >a lot less: The photon "moving" through a thicker medium
> >> >looks like it's "moving" more slowly than the photon that is
> >> >traveling through a medium closer to vacuum. But looks
> >> >can be deceiving.]
> >>
> >> And how does this "theory" account for
> >> constant speed in varying
> >> frames of reference?
> >
> >Please note that the "x-space" referenced
> >in the quote below is merely a convenient
> >way to "visualize" the methodology of the
> >universe's shrinking/imploding without changing
> >form/shape... by looking at the universe of
> >matter itself as "permanent" and instead
> >thinking of "space" as the thing "expanding."
> >
> >
> >BEGIN QUOTE
>
> What's the source of the quote?
Moi. I've said the same thing so many times
it's easier to just cut & paste.
> >Constancy of The Speed of Light In Identical Mediums
> >
> >One may also begin here: A bullet
> >traveling (say, through a "perfect"
> >vacuum) "knows" why it travels at
> >the speed it does: The amount of gun
> >powder in the bullet casing tells it
> > (+/- the gun's velocity). But how
> >do all photons know why they must,
> > every last one of them, travel at the
> >"speed" they do when no photon can
> > be given less or more impetus by its
> >source/creator? The most immediate
> >("only") possible answer is that the
> >photon is [relatively speaking] not
>
> How does it know not to travel at
> any speed? Answer: the term 'knows'
> is only relevant to sentient beings.
> Applying it to photons is meaningless.
No one imagined the photon was going about
its business according to how its moods
moved it! What is meant is that light can convey
information; and in that sense the photon is
quite the knowledgable little fellow.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
> Andrei
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Mark K.
S D Rodrian <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> > What's the source of the quote?
>
> Moi. I've said the same thing so many times
> it's easier to just cut & paste.
>
> its business according to how its moods
> moved it! What is meant is that light can convey
> information; and in that sense the photon is
> quite the knowledgable little fellow.
>
> S D Rodrian
> web.sdrodrian.com
> sdrodrian.com
> music.sdrodrian.com
>
>
newsgroups?
You are such a sad boring fart, little Oik.
Mark